Too Complex For Nature?

An online discussion. Indented comments are the other person.

Complexity Implies God

One of the things that convinced me that God exists is the order, design, and complexity of the human body. In my experience, where I find order, design, and complexity there is typically an intelligent mind at the origin of the object.

I have spent quite a bit of time studying complexity including reading several books on complexity theory. I would like to convince you that complex things don't require a mind to make.

A simple example is the Grand Canyon. The actual layout of the Grand Canyon is elaborately complex. The amazing thing is that no matter where you dump water, it is designed always to deliver that water to the river. That seems highly designed. But was a mind required to form the Grand Canyon?

That's interesting to consider and while the Grand canyon in of itself may be an example in nature that where we don't see any observable signs of an intelligent mind at work, a case can be made that the properties of water, rocks, and how they work certainly lend themselves toward an intelligent mind. I think that nature in its totality certainly demonstrates complexity and order that point to an intelligent mind at the origin.

Regardless of the Grand canyon, I believe the human body is far more complex in design and operation.

You are right, the body is more complex, but I need to start with a simple example.

The canyon builds itself in the sense that the very shape of the canyon causes organization in the future shape. The shape of the canyon does not "make a mind" because a mind is not needed to make complexity. All that is needed is a process. You have made an assumption that complexity needs a mind, but that is only an assumption that was common in the primitive world.

Another example is a snowflake which can be very complex, but there is no need for a mind to create one.

All you need is a "builder" and the builder need not be intelligent. The builder for the canyon is flowing water and erosion. The builder for the snowflake is water freezing in place.

Consider a third example: I make a robot which can do two things: make a copy of itself, and draw on a very large piece of paper. first the robot makes a copy, then both of them make a copy and so until I have millions of robots. Each one then sets about filling mozaic patterns on the piece of paper, always slightly different than the neighboring patterns. The resulting drawing will be VERY complex. But there is no intelligence here.

Intelligence is not required to make something complex. All that is required is that you have millions of builders that can build more builders.

Interesting points. You said that an intelligent mind is not needed to create the canyon just water flow and erosion which is a process and the process seems consistent and orderly as well. I am saying that an intelligent mind is at the origin of the process which created the Grand canyon.

This intelligent mind is god I take it. God hand carves the Grand Canyon. God actually places each little spike on a snowflake. I don't see how you can be serious. We can watch snowflakes form and it seems to be completely automatic without any hand of God involved.

So you believe that "intelligence" can make a "process" that creates a Grand Canyon, and that then in "intelligence" is a stuff that infects the process (which is just rain and erosion) and that intelligence stuff that is in the rain is the actual thing that then intelligently organizes the grand canyon.

A snowflake would be a byproduct of the hydronic cycle which is another process that seems orderly and consistent, signs of an intelligent mind at the origin. In your third example, you are the intelligent mind at the origin of the robots. You created them.

How is it that this intelligence infects the rain water? What is this intelligence stuff that is not in a mind, and somehow spread across the process?

Let's not become disingenuous in our dialogue here. I never said God hand carved the Grand canyon, I inferred that He is the intelligent mind behind the process, water flow and erosion, that created the Grand canyon.

How is this intelligence embodied into the process, water flow and erosion? After all, you claim that intelligence is required to create complexity. We know that the complexity of the grand canyon is actually created by water and erosion. What I don't see is how the intelligence is in the water and erosion in such a way that the intelligence is responsible for the complexity.

I have no idea what you mean by intelligence being a stuff so I won't respond to that.

Let me just add that I have heard the trope from apologist before when they can't explain how complexity was created, to wave their hands and say that "intelligence is put into the process". You probably heard this reason passed around, and nodded your head. But did you really think about it? If the complexity of the grand canyon is created by intelligence, how exactly is that intelligence inserted into the water and the erosion. You seem like a thoughtful person, but have you actually thought about this?

Intelligence can be observed in the way the process works which seems to be orderly and consistent as well as in the chemical make up of water and rocks themselves. However, my origin point of emphasis was not in the order and design of nature, though I believe that case can be made there. I specifically mentioned the human body. You say heard the "trope" before apologists regarding intelligence as though they use to fill some sort of gap. I can't speak for everyone but I certainly don't do that. Intelligence is not observed in every aspect of complexity however by and large, where there is complexity, order, and design there is usually an intelligent mind at the origin.

You claim that you can "see" the intelligence because of the result seems to you to be done by intelligence. That is once again only your assumption that intelligence is needed. Surely you can recognize this argument is circular.

Another thing is that complexity theory shows that truly complex things can be created by very simple things. Stephen Wolfram experimented with very simple programs: just 8 rules. He tried a bunch and on try #30 he found a simple that didn't just create complexity, it created INFINITE complexity. He found a program that can generate a pattern of dots that extends to infinity and never repeats! You can't get any more complex than that. The point though is that is did not take a complex program.

Benoit Mandelbrot found the same thing.

Your intuition -- your assumptions - -are that to make something complex, you need something complex, maybe even more complex. But we have demonstrated many time that simple things can create great complexity. You don't have to take my word on it. Wolfram's book "A Whole New Science" explains it in more detail that you would ever need.

I am not asking you to believe me. You can discover this from the evidence left by others, and decide for yourself.